Gujarat High Court
Jayantibhai Lallubhai Mistry vs Kiransinh Madansinh Chauhan on 11 July, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/334/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/07/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 334 of 2010
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK
================================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
================================================================
JAYANTIBHAI LALLUBHAI MISTRY
Versus
KIRANSINH MADANSINH CHAUHAN
================================================================
Appearance:
MR UTPAL M PANCHAL(1075) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
RULE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 1
================================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M.
PRACHCHHAK
Date : 11/07/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Present appeal is filed by the appellant - original
plaintiff against the judgment and decree dated
19.01.2009 passed by the learned Principal Senior Civil
Judge, Gandevi (hereinafter referred to as "the trial court")
in Special Civil Suit No. 2 of 2005, whereby, the learned
Judge has dismissed the suit filed by the appellant for
recovery of Rs. 10,26,800/-.
2. Brief facts giving rise to the present appeal are as
under :
2.1 The appellant is an agriculturist and residing at
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/334/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/07/2025
undefined
Bilimora. That, the appellant is having agricultural lands at
village Sadedvel, Tal. Chikhli, bearing Block No.204. The
said land consists of Mango trees, chikoo trees and in
some lands crops of sugar-cane, rice were grown. The said
land was known as "Shivbaba Farm and Shivshakti Farm".
The appellant was earning the income from the said
Mango, chikoo, papaya trees and also from crops like
sugar-cane, rice, according to season. That, the
respondent was the son of friend of appellant and so they
were having good relations and respondent approached
the appellant for partnership business of agriculture. So,
the appellant and the respondent entered into a contract
regarding management of said agricultural land and to sell
the products of agriculture. That, the appellant agreed
with the respondent to get 50% share from the income
and 50% share of the respondent in the said income. The
respondent was to manage all the business. That, the
appellant gave possession of the said lands to the
respondent and respondent was managing the business
from 8.8.2001 and he was managing said business since
14 years.
2.2 That, subsequently the respondent did not show his
desireness to continue the said business. So, till the
management of said land under the respondent and
respondent was to pay 50% of the amount to the
appellant. So, the respondent had issued a cheque for Rs.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/334/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/07/2025
undefined
10,00000/- in favour of the appellant as per the accounts
of said business. That, the appellant had deposited the
cheque in his account but, the said cheque returned with
an endorsement of 'stop payment'. So the appellant had
issued a notice to the respondent. Then again respondent
approached the appellant and asked him to present the
said cheque again in his account. So the appellant had
again deposited said cheque in his account but, again the
same returned without encashment. So, the appellant had
filed a criminal complaint under the Negotiable Instrument
Act before the learned J.M.F.C. Gandevi bearing No.3360
of 2003. But the said case was dismissed due to technical
ground.
2.3 That, the appellant sold Shivbaba Farm and another
Shivshakti Farm was in his possession and under the
management of the appellant. That, the respondent
neither paid said amount of Rs. 10 lakhs to the appellant
and therefore, the appellant had filed the suit to recover
the said amount alongwith interest at the rate of 8% p.a.
from 8.1.2001 total amounting to Rs. 10.26,800/-,
whereby, the said suit was rejected vide judgment and
decree dated 19.01.2009.
3. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment
and decree dated 19.01.2009 passed by the learned
Principal Senior Civil Judge, Gandevi in Special Civil Suit
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/334/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/07/2025
undefined
No. 2 of 2005, the appellant has filed the present appeal
under Section 96 of the Civil Procedure Code.
4. Heard learned advocate Mr. Utpal M. Panchal,
appearing on behalf of the appellant.
Though served, none has remained present on behalf
of the respondent.
5. It appears from the record that though the appellant
had deposed before the trial court but, he had constantly
remained absent for cross-examination before the trial
court and had not produced any sufficient evidence to
prove his case, which the learned advocate for the
appellant was unable to controvert. It has also come on
record that in the criminal case filed by the appellant
under the provisions of Negotiable Instruments Act against
the respondent, the respondent came to be acquitted from
the charges levelled against him by the concerned court.
6. Considering all these aspects, I do not find any
reason to interfere with the findings recorded by the trial
court as the trial court has not committed any error while
passing the impugned judgment and decree, more
particularly, the findings recorded with regard to the issue
nos.1 to 3, which was discussed by the trial court in detail
after going through the record and proceedings.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/334/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/07/2025
undefined
7. In the result, the present appeal being devoid of any
merits deserves to be dismissed and accordingly, it is
dismissed. No order as to costs.
8. Record and proceedings, if any, be sent back to the
concerned Court forthwith.
(HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK,J)
Dolly
